J. Nannoplankton Res. 30 (1), 2008, pp.57-76 © 2008 International Nannoplankton Association, Inc.
ISSN 1210-8049 Printed by Cambridge University Press, UK

57

Web-chat
Non-reviewed nanno-related discussions from informal discourses held on coccoliths.list and PaleoNet

compiled by Jackie Lees
Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

The crisis in NSF funding inpalaeontology - what can we do, etc.?
The palaeo academic jobs situation
Emiliania huxleyi research
Data on faculty ranks
A problem in Spanish palaeo?
Rotary sample splitter
Nannotax online database
System, subsystem, series, stage
Cenozoic nanno help needed
Plankton Strat reprinted
Stereo microscopes
Fossil taxonomy of the 21st Century
The palaeo industrial jobs situation
Microscope help
Foraminifera or foraminifers?
Emiliania SOS

1. Peter Ward (argo@u.washington.edu - 27.9.07) offered: While this is broadcast to everyone, it is aimed primarily at the Americans on the list, although I think it
affects everyone. To those of you who have submitted to
NSF for research funds over the past few years, working
through Rich Lane’s panel, there is no need to elaborate we are in a crisis of funding. Too many good proposals, too
little money - Rich Lane surely presides over the most frustrating job in the world - the bi-yearly declination of proposals that should be funded. The acceptance rate seems tobe below 10%, and few fields can long sustain vigor whenfewer than one in ten of us gets federal funding. There aremany reasons for this, surely, some obvious, some not.
Among the obvious, however, is the inescapable conclusion that we have not adequately made the case at a national (or even international) level that we deserve more
funding, that our science should get a larger cut of the NSF
science pie than it does now. Why does our science matter?
Why should it be funded? Who makes our case in the meetings where the pie is sliced in the first place? How many
papers do we put out in the ‘Cadillac’ publications (aNASA term - Science, Nature, PNAS) - what is our citation
record - and who keeps track for use in the proverbial
closed-door meetings where the pie of funding is sliced?
How does one make the successful case against physics,
chemistry, biology, and the rest?
With this e-mail, I suggest that we begin a dialog on
how to improve this situation. If we can bloviate at length
on Paleonet about The View and latex, surely we can put
our collective intelligence and wisdom together on how to
tap into better funding. We should be in the catbird’s seat:
we hold the tablets of time, we deal with climate and its
origins, we sit at the head table of evolutionists and somuch more. Our relevance in debates over teaching science
instead of creationism, of how global warming can reallywreck a world, of how a planet with life changes over timewith relevance to life beyond Earth, even of finding life (orits fossils) on Mars, let alone our ownership of dinosaurs
and hence the interest of kids large and small - and yet thefunds we receive to conduct our science are so meager as
to strangle our science.
I believe that we should pressure our ‘senators’ - thosepaleontologists in the National Academy have a greater
voice than we rank and file - to stand up for us with morevigor than they have in the past. Secondly, there should be
more of those senators - why is it that a paleontologist iselected into the Academy only once a decade or so - when
in fact our field can stand against any in the intellectual
records of so many of our colleagues - why are there notmore of us in the corridors of national science power? We
are doing something very, very wrong, and we play thepower game that exists between various science disciplines
very poorly, quite obviously.
What can a solution be? Rich Lane has tried in the past
to convene groups looking for solutions to the funding
problem. But he needs more of us to chime in. More of us
should explain, through the vast opportunities of the internet as well as mainstream media, why we matter - what wedo, and tell more of the fabulous discoveries about the pastand present that can so fascinate taxpayers. We need to better make the case for our relevance, and explore ways to
do so. We need officers in the Paleo Society (PS) who work
not just for us in the field, by keeping the journals andshort-courses rolling, but work as well for the good of the
field through active participation in finding more national
funding - who bang on DC doors, who know their way
through the NSF halls.
Should we have a policy to fund our young scientists
at a greater rate? Should we make all grants 2 years insteadof 3 to spread the money farther? Should we create new‘initiatives’ from our vast breadth - and if so, which ones?
Global warming is not going away anytime soon, and we
hold the key to important science relevant to this field, with
its increasingly large pots of funding.
Why have we not started lobbying with our own electedstate representatives - for example, when NASA recently
cut funding to astrobiology, many of us, prodded by leadership in the NASA Astrobiology Institute (which, by theway, had more paleontologists as heads of teams than fromany other discipline, as we paleontologists are pre-adapted
to be astrobiologists, having already learned to balance ourintellectual lives between different disciplines, which iswhat AB strives to do), many of us trooped our grad students up to Capitol Hill in DC, and banged on doors. This

58

Lees

works. Some funding was restored.
How about asking our officers to spend 10 minutes at
the upcoming PS Lunch to tell us what the leadership in
the PS is doing to improve NSF or other funding? Howabout having Rich Lane give us a report of funding trends,
in addition to the reports from our other officers, for he isin leadership, de facto? How about cutting 5 minutes off
some of those droning medal acceptance speeches to describe realistic ways of translating the excitement of paleontology to the excitement of that now all too rare phone
call from NSF announcing that a proposal was funded.
How about figuring out some way to increase our acceptance rates to 20% from its current doldrums? How about
workshops on how to conduct an ‘ask’ from private donors,
or how to write a successful proposal in this new world?
How about more action, or at least more explanation, fromthose we elect, those that are elected for us, those that are
hired to fund us? This is a crisis.
I believe, at a minimum, that the PS should begin trueelections, people with platforms that might differ from candidate to candidate, instead of our current method of installing people who have had a good research record, when
we need people who have a good lobbying record. Let’select activists, people with vision, people with experiencein tapping public and private funding, people with anagenda and plans for dealing with this crisis. Let’s face thiscrisis, and confront it with solutions.
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 28.9.07) responded:
I am in full agreement with Peter Ward’s statement, in particular that a situation that has been serious for years has
now reached crisis proportions. How many new positions
for young paleontologists will there be, and how many already with jobs will receive tenure, given the current funding situation?
Martin Farley (mbfarley@hal-pc.org - 2.10.07) added:
I think Peter Ward is correct that we need to do a better jobof selling our field to the broader society that could fundour work. We need to consider what levers (and this is advisedly plural) to pull to increase funding for paleontology
and what examples of our work will work best with eachlever. One element is for paleontology to speak with a more
unified voice. One thing that splinters our effectiveness isthat paleontologists have many societies. While I appreciate the efforts of the PS, it is relevant to point out that PS
doesn’t include all paleontologists. Many (most?) micropaleontologists, in which I include palynologists, are
not members of PS. This is probably true of most paleobotanists too. The absence of these groups from PS has complicated origins, but the lack of unification hurts the field.
At a minimum, PS could take a more active role in trying
to pull together the various elements of the field. In my
opinion, PS has had some success by organizing the paleosessions at GSA in most years by the kind of problem thepaleontology is attacking rather than the fossil group being
used. Even if PS can’t get more of the non-member paleontologists to join, it can act as an umbrella to organize thesocieties that those paleontologists do belong to.

We can gain from observing the successes in paleontology funding. For example, paleontologists associatedwith ODP have been successful in getting funding from theoceanography program of NSF. One aspect of this successis integration of paleontologic results with the broader geologic and oceanographic investigations undertaken as partof ODP.
There are broader levers for us to keep in mind too. Science, in its 24 Nov 2006 issue, had an interview with Sherwood Boehlert, the then retiring chair of the House ofRepresentatives Science Committee. In it, he recommended
that scientists need to do more advocacy with the politicalsector to show the value of science. He recommended
meeting with political candidates to explain why theyshould be interested in the science agenda. Ultimately, thegovernment funds science because it believes that the result
will be beneficial to society, including the economy. We
need to do a better job of articulating what benefits there
have been (and will be) to even basic paleontologic research. In fact, we might want to start compiling examplesof these benefits: One that comes to mind is how basic
work on palynology led to techniques that are now contributing to understanding the life cycle of key agricultural
crop pests (i.e., insects). Environmental micropaleontology
is another category of examples.
Some of this has been attempted with other arenas of
paleontologic support. Several years ago, John Armentrout
and I wrote articles for Geotimes, and particularly Offshore,
explaining how to use paleontology effectively in the oil
industry. John Armentrout also prepared a talk for exploration managers on the value of paleo (his very nice PowerPoint slides were on the NAMS website for anyone touse the last time I looked). This is by no means an exhaustive list of levers and examples, so I invite discussion ofother ways to sell the benefits of paleo.
Roger Thomas (roger.thomas@fandm.edu - 2.10.07)
commented: In his posting last week, Peter Ward draws attention to the critical shortage of NSF and other government funding in support of research in paleontology. This
problem is not unique to paleontology nor is it unique to the
US. Nonetheless, the situation is serious, and Peter has
made some good suggestions in regard to the kinds of action we should take to improve the standing of our profession. One thing is reassuring. Despite limited funding, it isquite extraordinary how much exciting, ground-breaking
research is being done and reported in Science, Nature andmore specialized journals, every month.
It is not the case, as Peter Ward implies, that the PS has
its head in the sand, taking no account of the funding problems we face. Over the past three or four years, under theleadership of Bill Ausich, Dave Bottjer and now Derek
Briggs, the Society has pursued the following initiatives:(1) PS/NSF ‘Town Meetings’, designed to publicize funding that is available from a variety of sources within NSF,
and to facilitate discussion of other funding options that paleontologists should pursue, have been held at annual meetings of the Geological Society of America in 2004, 2005

Web-chatand 2006. A similar meeting was held at the North American Paleontological Convention in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
in 2005, and another will be held at the GSA meeting later
this month. Rich Lane of NSF has been an active and mosthelpful participant in all these discussions. (2) In consequence of these discussions, the PS received a grant from
NSF to fund a workshop on Future Research Directions in
Paleontology, held in April, 2006. Representatives of theSociety of Vertebrate Paleontology and the Paleobotanical
Section of the Botanical Society of America participatedwith active members of PS in this effort. This group, ably
led by Dave Bottjer, has developed a research plan incorporating several key initiatives. These are outlined in abrochure that will be released and highlighted at the GSA
meeting, this month. (3) In 2005, the PS applied for and received a grant of $25,000 from NSF to support participation by US students in the North American Paleontological
Convention, in Halifax, Nova Scotia. These grants wereawarded on a competitive basis to student applicants, taking no account of PS membership in making these awards.
(4) In 2006, the PS applied for and received a grant of$25,000 from NSF to support participation by US students
in the International Palaeontological Convention, in Beijing. These grants were awarded on a competitive basis tostudent applicants, taking no account of PS membership inmaking these awards. (5) In 2006, the PS provided $7500
of its own funds to help make up a shortfall in funding forthe highly successful summer course that has been offered
for several years by the Paleobiology Database. The PS
Council will be considering a renewed request for funds tosupport the 2008 summer course, at its meeting in Denver.
(6) Drawing on a modest income from endowed funds, agenerous annual gift from the Mid-America Paleontological Society (MAPS), and the largest part from general income, the PS provides 25-30 small grants of $500 to $1000
for student research, every summer. Currently, the Society
is in the process of raising $250,000 to endow and further
enhance this program of student grants. We are now halfway toward achieving this ambitious goal. (7) Every year,
prompted by the foresight of Jack Sepkoski, the PS provides 26 small research grants of $500 to scholars in countries of the former Soviet Union. This program isunendowed. It is supported by the Society’s general income.
No one would pretend that these worthwhile ventures
go all that far in addressing the need for more financial support of paleontological research that Peter Ward has articulated. Undoubtedly, there is more we can do. Leadership
positions in the PS are up for election every year. Next year,
Mark Patzkowsky will have completed six years of excellent service as our Treasurer. We will also be electing a new
President-elect, and a new Councilor. I will be delighted toforward the names of members of the Society who wish toserve in any of these capacities to the Committee on Nominations. In the following year, 2009, I will have completed
my term as Secretary and we will also be electing another
new Councilor. There are regularly recurring opportunities

59

to serve in coordinating our programs at professional meetings, in educational outreach, and as editors of one or otherof our two excellent journals, our newsletter and our special publications. This is not a closed shop. Membershipon the Council of the PS turns over quite rapidly. We welcome the participation of all those who are willing to volunteer their time to take on leadership roles in the Society.
Mickey Rowe (mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu - 2.10.07)
contributed: I’m glad someone else pointed that out... I wasplanning to, but hadn’t gotten to it. I’m an outsider to paleontology, and I was a little surprised at people citing 10%
as a low funding rate, as though paleontology has been particularly hard hit. In the past four years, the panels I’ve submitted to (variations on animal sensation and movement)
have never had funding rates above 10%. Last year, NSF
put out a survey that included a question about what people thought the success rates were for grants in the panels
to which they submitted. Information about the survey canbe found here: http://www.nsf.gov/od/ipamm/ipamm_2007
survey.jsp or you can directly download the results(http://www.nsf.gov/ od/ipamm/ipamm_2007proposersurveyresults/nsf_2007proposersurvey_results_070629.pdf).
Question 40 is about success rates, and as you’ll see if you
get the file, almost 50% of respondents believe funding
rates for their programs are 10% or less. As one of the survey respondents, I checked out these results as soon as they
became available last spring. Since the subject is topicalhere, I decided today to find out how accurate peoples’ perceptions are about those funding rates. NSF has a PowerPoint presentation file here: www.nsf.gov/attachments/
103193/public/AkayIPAMMupdate.ppt. The bottom line ofthe presentation is that the number of submissions is goingup, while NSF is funding a smaller number of grants because the average award size is increasing and the budget
is not keeping pace. This is from slide 4 of the presentation:
Research proposal success rates dropped from 30% in FY
2000 to 20% in FY 2005, leveled off in FY 2006 (21%)
Coincided with:
47% increase in proposal submissions (began in FY 2000,
peaked in FY 2004, leveled off in FY 2005 and 2006)
41% increase in average award size
39% increase in median award size
Research proposal success rates varied across the R&RA
directorates, however all experienced declines.

I was surprised to find that the funding rate, NSF-wide,
is so much higher than it is for the panel I submit to, though
I also know that the numbers can be jiggered a bit because,
for instance, collaborative proposals can be double counted(or not) depending upon the point you want to make. And
I’m not sure how that issue was dealt with in the PowerPoint presentation. Anyways, it seems to me that if you
want to do something about the problem it would be goodto understand it. I’m sure a lot of you are familiar with all
this, but I thought it would be good to put out some data —about both funding success rates and what others think of

60

Lees

them — for public consumption. I hope you find it useful.
Sara Lubkin (shl24@cornell.edu - 2.10.07) made thepoint: After eight years (mostly due to lack of funding andlack of lab space), I just earned my PhD in paleontology
and have seen perhaps three job openings that I was qualified to apply for in the past year. As far as I know, none ofthe other students who I was in grad school with are employed in paleobiology jobs, although one has a post-doc.
I’m struggling with the decision of continuing to look fora job that would involve relocation and probably time awayfrom my family, or doing something else in order to pay
off my student loans. I worry that if I take another job to
pay the bills, I won’t be able to get back into paleontology
and won’t have the time to get my dissertation in publishable format. I am not sure that I would advise a young person to study paleontology. I love what I do, but I certainly
am glad my older children (soon to be college students) areconsidering more practical majors. I’m a paleoentomologist, and there is nothing better to get kids interested in science than a nice mixture of fossils and creepy crawlies. My
nephew is fascinated with my work and it has inspired him
to become some kind of ‘ologist’, but what do I say when
he asks about paleontology? “Wonderful field Nate, if you
like being unemployed”. Some days I wish I had stayed inengineering.
Bruno Granier (granierbruno@orange.fr - 2.10.07)
contributed: A mere coincidence but I received today amessage from a French colleague with the following excerpt, answer from the hero in Leo Szilard’s (1948) story‘The Mark Gable Foundation’, when asked by a wealthy
entrepreneur who believes that science has progressed too
quickly, what he should do to retard this progress: “You
could set up a foundation with an annual endowment ofthirty million dollars. Research workers in need of funds
could apply for grants, if they could make a convincing
case. Have ten committees, each composed of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take themost active scientists out of the laboratory and make themmembers of these committees... First of all, the best scientists would be removed from their laboratories and kept
busy on committees passing on applications for funds. Secondly the scientific workers in need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered promising andwere pretty certain to lead to publishable results... By goingafter the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science would become something like a parlor game... There
would be fashions. Those who followed the fashions would
get grants. Those who wouldn’t would not.” Sad but predictable.
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 4.10.07) replied:First, I want to thank Peter Ward for opening up this discussion. How we as a community, either as individuals or
through our professional societies, respond to this situation
will determine the long-term viability of paleontology inthe US. I also want to thank Roger Thomas for summarizing the efforts carried out to date by the PS and its leadership. We should all recognize that the PS is fundamentallya voluntary organization; members of the council carry out
their tasks without remuneration and at a significant costto their own research and teaching, and they deserve ourthanks. What is at issue is that NSF funding for paleontology is insufficient to maintain the field. In the most recent
round in NSF Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology, thetotal budget for new projects was only $1.6 million, for 18
proposals. Not all of this funding is for paleontology. Basedon the forthcoming FRDP report, funding for paleontology
comprises 2.5% of the EAR budget and only 0.5% of
NSF’s overall Geosciences budget. In an academic environment, especially at the research universities, where
worth is often judged not only by receiving a grant, but by
its size, current funding levels threaten both future hiring
and tenure decisions.
The question is, what is to be done. To me, the issue is
not whether we can identify important and interesting areasof research; this has been done repeatedly in the last decadeand can be found in such documents as Geobiology of Critical Intervals (GOCI), The Geological Record of Ecological Dynamics, and the forthcoming FRDP report. Instead,what is needed are structural changes in our institutions thatwill make them more effective advocates for our science.
Some of these changes are contained in the FRDP document under the heading ‘Development of the Role of Professional Paleontological Societies to Promote
Paleontology and Paleontological Research’. This section
was drafted by a group that included past and present leadership of the PS and SVP and includes specific actions thatshould be taken. These include activities within and among
the societies to enhance research and funding prospects;
promoting paleontology to other scientists; and promoting
paleontology to the public at large, including elected representatives. As suggested by Martin Farley, this section
also calls for much closer cooperation among our disparate
societies. I strongly urge all of you to read this section, andthe entire document, carefully when they are made available. No doubt other actions, including those suggested byPeter, should be considered and taken.
Michael Kishel (mike@virtuosoevolution.com 4.10.07) came back with: Now maybe I am way off base,especially considering that I am not a professional but anamateur paleontologist (went to choose college majors and[fore]saw what you guys are talking about now). I did still
do my bachelors and masters in a field of biology, though.
I’m curious as to what all of your thoughts are on private
funding. To my knowledge there are only two regular magazines devoted to paleontology that have limited distribution. But my experience has been that large portions of the
population are interested in the field in a non-careerpursuing sort of way and as is true in my local amateur paleontology society (Western Interior PaleontologicalSociety) there are quite a batch of volunteers and evensome like myself who have enough science background to
make a tangible contribution that might otherwise be doneby graduate students. They are not the only ones though.
There are a great many people who are interested who doWeb-chatnot even know that amateur organizations exist and have noidea that their local university department needs money.
They’ve never seen a magazine either but they would probably buy it if they did. There’s money out there. I know because I used my fancy science degrees to open a business.
Lots of dough out there I think. Just need some creative
methods to go after it. Look at our competition for example. Are we really going to allow Evangelical Christians togenerate millions of dollars to open more fraudulent museums while our funding and therefore programs go down
the tube? The truth can be hijacked with enough money andthey know how to generate it. I think that we could steal
their model and make sure that the truth remains paramount. Now I fully realize that I have just blasphemed theholy spirit in professional paleontology circles but really it
should not be eliminated as a possibility even if it is thelast resort. Those of you who are in the museum side know
how fascinated we amateurs are with what you do. And asa final point we have a lot more money than you do that
we just might be willing to spend. In addition to this, letme be very careful to point out that I am not talking about
putting our museums and university programs up for salelike you might see at the Tucson gem and mineral expo.
Just using creative methods of getting more doners, sponsors, private grants, private scholarship money, and whatever else is needed. OK who would like to go first and tellme why I am wrong? Be gentle. I just wanna help.
David Campbell (pleuronaia@gmail.com - 4.10.07)
volunteered: I saw a recent study that found that biology
tenured positions have remained fairly constant while thenumber of students has gone up. Does anyone know if thisis the case in geology as well? Such a situation creates evengreater problems than it might seem, because the constantnumber of tenure-track positions includes an increasing
number of novel subfields. Paleontology and systematics
tend to be regarded as topics that can be cut in order to add
someone who works in the latest hot field. Are there ways
to (a) better convey that paleo is a hot topic worth hiring in?
(b) encourage adding positions to address new fields, rather
than cutting important existing topics? (c) create jobs inpaleo and systematics?
Peter Ward (argo@u.washington.edu - 4.10.07) responded: I was in the Geology Department at the University of Washington for 20 years with no additional paleo
hires. I moved two thirds of myself (ouch!) to our Biology
Department three years ago and we have made three newhires in two years in that department since then - two vert
paleontologists and one paleobotanist, while our Geology
Department turned my old position into another geobiologist, to add to the new position of geobiology/astrobiology(Roger Buick) that came with our addition to the NASA
Astrobiology Institute in 2000. We have thus added whatessentially are 5 new paleontologists through some creative
labeling. Our Biology Department has over 2,000 majors,
and all need to learn Evolution. Thus our Deans are happy
to hire paleontologists because we can teach that, andanatomy. Add to that number Liz Nesbitt in our Mu-

61

seum/Geology Department and we now have seven active
paleontologists, mainly by working with new positions
needed for the huge number crunch in biology departments.
Jere H. Lipps <(jlipps@berkeley.edu - 18.10.07)
added: Some of these issues are international in scope andothers may impact others around the world, although I stay
focused, as you did, on the US conditions. Nevertheless, I
hope our colleagues in other countries may benefit fromthese discussions.
1. Paleo is funded also from a lot of other sources in NSF,
including Polar Programs, Biology, Oceanography, Climate
Change, etc., and these need to be figured into the mix before action is formulated. We might be doing very wellcompared to some other fields, but I do not know of a compilation of such data. It could be had by an energetic undergrad just going through the NSF awards website andtallying the paleo projects (however they are disguised byother names). Maybe Rich Lane has it already? That would
be useful information.
2. If you are curious about what is being funded, you canlook at the NSF web display of awards in total, or by program or manager (nsf.gov then to ‘awards’). Lane gave bigawards ($400K) for databases (do we really need them?),probably with the idea that they serve a wide part of thecommunity (really?). Many projects were funded throughGlobal Climate Change with him as the lead manager andthese do not come out of the Paleo budget. A few of theusual investigative projects ran around $100K each. The
truth is: Very little money is available to the paleo community at large and only a few of us will benefit at any one
time. Most communities probably feel this way too.
3. Considering that overhead takes a big piece of these little pies means we are getting much less (>50%) than thosesums would indicate for actual research (my institution
adds 52%, which is low I understand, based on a formulathat is too complicated for this comment. Some overheads
approach and exceed 100%). Program managers, even
NSF, I believe, have no control over these, as they are negotiated by the Feds outside of NSF.
4. Award rates run less than 10% in the paleo program, andover 100 proposals (we need to know this number and to
get these unsuccessful PIs together to find out what’s goingwrong) are received for any deadline date. This is very discouraging, not only for submitters but for reviewers as well(“Why should I review an excellent proposal, when it won’t
be funded — it’s a waste of everyone’s time” I heard paleontologists say). We are not alone, however. I hear from biologists in my department that success rates in theirprograms are less than 10% too. We need better data on allof these programs and on total number of submissions. We
need to know that 8/123 proposals, for an unreal example,
were funded, not percentages, simply because actual numbers make it more real. If my made up numbers were correct, this would indicate an awful lot of wasted time andeffort for paleontologists and scientists in general. My only
suggestion here is to write every proposal as a paper witha title page and budget, then strip the latter two off when it

62

Lees

is declined and submit it. At least it’s not all wasted. Oh,
you may need to add a little data and some conclusions but
the only way people seem to get grants now days is to submit projects that are already nearly complete.
5. We probably should get paleobiology into the Biology
Directorate in some formal sense, leaving Lane with stratigraphic, paleoenvironmental and other geologic paleo in
the GEO Directorate. Some are being funded through BIO
programs anyway. Maybe it’s best to leave it this way, butmore visibility might help.
6. A number of traditions/historical factors affect theamount of funding paleo gets. Deep Earth people, including geochemistry, have been doing well relatively becauseof past performance/impressions/leadership and those are
hard to reverse without heavy leadership from above. But
no one has anywhere near what is required to significantly
impact the various fields. All programs seem to be too modestly funded for their constituencies. This requires action at
the Congressional level; for paleontology we must makesure such appeals are relevant to national goals in scienceand society, and that some sensitive issues like evolution be
handled well, perhaps as part of scientific literacy rather
than a head-on confrontation.
7. Multi-million dollar projects, like EarthScope for the
deep Earth folks, have not been emulated by paleo, although Steve Stanley’s GOSCI was a recent attempt. Perhaps we need some careful thinking on other ‘big bucks’
approaches. But be forewarned that even these projects will
not fund a large number of people. If we had such a program that focused on what the fossil record implies about
the human condition or its future (and Earth’s) in some very
coherent and very well presented way, it might fly. It should
certainly be process oriented. Maybe a ‘Back to the Future’
kind of project where the ‘past is the key to the present andthe future’ holds some potential. We need discussion andvision. But these big ticket items are approved and managed at levels above the program managers usually.
8. NSF is like a broken sediment splitter. A lot of money
gets poured in at the top by congress, a huge chunk falls
outside the splitter just for management, and the rest getssorted into the various directorates, divisions, then into
smaller units, and finally into programs. The sorter is bent
too, for some areas get much more than equally-deserving
other areas. For increases in any program, a convincing argument must be made at higher levels in the structure. Program managers can help with insight and knowledge of theorganization and its mandates, but the paleo community
must make itself heard with strong justifications at thehigher levels, starting with GEO and making a way perhaps even to higher levels. Right now, Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology is a Program (Rich Lane, manager)in the Surface Processes Section of Earth Sciences Division (which includes Oceans (OCE) and Atmosphere(ATM)) in the Geosciences (GEO) Directorate, which I
think reports to the Director of NSF. In each of these, anumber of special projects operate. Budgets for each ofthese (from NSF to programs and projects) are surely avail-able on-line but I haven’t found them on the NSF web site.
Whatever we do will cut across a lot of others and force a
new bend in the funds-splitter because new funds are unlikely to come or help. It seems an onerous task, indeed,but the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. One
thing we bet on is that nothing will change if we do nothing...
9. Paleo is well regarded by NSF, at least as a media item.
If you walk into the GEO director’s office, a display of fossils from recent work confronts you. The NSF website recently featured dinosaur hunting and whale fossils on thehome page. Last year’s significant accomplishments sponsored by NSF include a couple of vert paleo projects. So
fossils are well recognized but the science needs to bestrengthened among NSF and our colleagues. We need tomake a strong case with all of them that life is one of very
few factors that has changed the Earth and will continue tochange the Earth through time. I think we are still regarded,as many on the other side have said and many on our side
have pointed out that they said, as ‘stamp collectors’. This
needs to be changed even more. Look at the esteem bio in
general is now held in. Paleo, as the history underpinning
all this bio, should hold some of that same esteem and garner a few more dollars for more careful work relating that
history to modern biology. We need to focus on processes
rather than anything that smacks of stamp collecting, nomatter where we make our pitch, while not ignoring thebasic data of our field. A tough row to hoe, but not impossible. Another problem is that most paleontology is restricted in time or systematic category to very small units
that have little application beyond their immediate constituency. That is largely the nature of paleo, but we canchange that to some extent by careful thought and morecollaborative research projects.
10. Paleontology is fragmented itself, as we all know.
Roger Thomas is willing to take on this problem throughthe PS, as his last e-mail noted. Micropaleo, vert, invert,
botany, paleo don’t represent the entire field well and arepoorly understood by other Earth scientists and even bysome paleontologists themselves. This fragmentation enhances the stamp collecting view and trivializes some important things paleontologists are doing in Earth history.
Perhaps a project on processes that considers and includes
all paleo would work.
11. Soft-money positions (post-docs) are very costly to any
program, and are a form of scientific welfare, as currently
set up. A better recognition of these as additional desired
education rather than stop-gap employment might makethem more viable. On the other hand, that money will comeout of the overall research budget and, with benefits, they
cost a lot.
12. Don’t blame the program managers. They are dedicatedand committed to their communities. They clearly care a
lot and are willing to work for good things, if those can be
identified. Rich Lane works hard too for us, but has too few
resources to accommodate all our needs. These people also
carry proposals around to other units in NSF to see if they

Web-chatcan fund them in part or whole. I believe these people areworking for us, and we should utilize them insofar as theiremployment conditions will allow.
13. Some responders to your message noted that paleo positions were rare. Flessa, in the late 90s, tracked academic
paleo positions in the US for several decades. If I remember right, he documented about 480+ positions decades before, and the number was still about the same. These
positions suffer again from the ‘stamp collectors’ labels by
our colleagues and hence seem unnecessary in rapidly developing science departments in need of people in new subdisciplines. We must make the history of life much morethan a picture book of fossils through time, but demonstratethat this history is relevant to Earth and biologicalprocesses now and into the future, as well as in the past. It
should be process oriented. You note, Peter, that you wereable to line up 5 positions at your place. That’s great. At
our place, we have had vacant positions for years that wecannot fill because of administrative and/or departmental
failures, decisions or desires and needs to hire in other disciplines, especially in biology. Hopefully, we will fill a couple of paleo positions in the next year, and we will be able
to do what I advocate above at the department/college
level, although I am deeply concerned. Has anyone else
had success lately in this regard?
In summary, much more can be done, as you suggested,
but it must be done with NSF by intelligent, relevant andcompelling presentations. Everyone complains, far fewer
think about how to approach the problem. Rich Lane, tohis credit, has tried to work with the paleo community at
meetings and other venues on developing better funding.
I am not sure where his latest efforts, started 3 years ago
with the PS, have led but we should find out at the GSA
meeting later this month (look for the results of the NSF
Workshop on Future Research Directions in Paleontology).
No matter how paleo at NSF is funded, it will not beenough to sustain the entire community. Other sources inother federal and private sectors do exist, as you know —NASA, DOE, DOS, private philanthropical organizations,and internal funding at universities and museums, but theserequire a bit of searching. Maybe PS could help in identifying some of these and even paving the way into certain
philanthropies (they usually fund in specific areas, andthese areas are what the Boards are familiar with. Perhaps
a letter from PS identifying important issues would refocus some of them). We certainly need more vision when it
comes to funding and innovative project designs.
I have made a number of serious suggestions here that
require careful discussion and action. Some of this is underway. You can help by asking the PS to take the leadership, as suggested just the other day by Roger Thomas,
once again to contact the NSF at levels higher than Rich
Lane (GEO division and up), to organize a well thought-out
campaign to inform Congress of NSF’s poor situation
through cooperation with other societies (no single sciencecan pull this off alone) and urge more funding, an organizedand orchestrated letter-writing campaign on behalf of paleo

63(or history of life, biodiversity through time, or some othermore common words) to Congress with a common theme
that includes our colleagues in the life sciences, and a more
effective way to engage in this effort all scientists that use
fossils in any way (paleoceanographers, paleoclimatologists, evolutionary biologists, biostratigraphers, historicalbiogeographers and phylogeographers, ‘historical conservation biologists’, even general geologists, among others,
as well as the traditional micro, invert, vert, plant paleo
types, and maybe even our supporters among the amateur/commercial paleo community). With a general collection of fossil users broadly defined, we make an impressive
and numerically large group. We could help everyone byworking on these things together.
I urge every paleo group meeting at GSA next week toaddress some of these and other related issues in their own
annual meetings (PS, Cushman, MicropaleoProject, friendsof this or that fossil group or time, etc.). Now is the time foraction, not next year. Go to the NSF exhibit and ask a lot ofquestions about funding and what’s up there, contact Rich
Lane and talk to him about your ideas for improving funding resources and how to do it (he and NSF know yourcomplaints and doesn’t need more of that, I’m sure). Individuals should take care in discussing these issues for fearof clouding the larger and more general problems we see asa profession with their own issues. This requires coordination best done by input from many people, and presented
by people without vested interests in particular projects
who represent the profession generally — hence the PS coordinated with the other fossil-oriented societies are theonly way to go. Of course, as Peter suggests, the big-shotsof the profession could go collectively to Congress or GEO
and make a case. That takes leadership from within thatgroup or maybe just a push from the PS...
David Campbell (pleuronaia@gmail.com - 22.10.07)
added: Peter’s example of successfully getting several paleontologists into a biology department is not universal. In
one case where I had some inside information, my graduate degrees being from a geology program was deemed
grounds for tossing my application in the reject pile for abiology job. On the other hand, I do know of several paleontologists in biology departments, so it probably depends
on the search committee. Given that the average unsuccessful job application receives either no notice at all or“We regret to inform you that out of the many well-qualified applicants, we picked someone else”, it’s rarely easy todetermine a reason.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 22.10.07) replied:Peter’s example of successfully getting several paleontologists into a biology department is not universal. ...It is the
only one I can think of too. In fact, it may be the only occurrence of new, previously non-existent paleo positions
being filled. Nearly all jobs are replacements made by wise
departments.
...my graduate degrees being from a geology program wasdeemed grounds for tossing my application in the rejectpile for a biology job. This happens a lot. When many ap-

64

Lees

plicants are in the pool, then sorting becomes almost arbitrary. All are good, all might do the job, but how do you
select just one? Tough. You set aside the ones that are unusual, you toss out the ones that you think can’t teach the
topics you need taught (geologists, in your case), you throwout those whose research is deemed ‘not close enough’ toeither perceived specific needs, you leave out those whose
research is not compatible with other research programs,
and lastly you toss out people you don’t know very wellfor those who are your friends (but not if you are truly fairand unbiased, of course). This means that applicants forjobs must do a careful research job on the department andeach of its members, find out what’s really behind the hire,
who wants what, and then emphasize those aspects of yourown CV. Don’t lie, because that’s sure death, but emphasis
is important to get a hearing. A close look is what you areafter — that’s when your own credentials can shine. Geologists will always have a tough time in biology departments and vice versa (although I think geology departments
are more open to biologists in paleo). On the other hand, I
do know of several paleontologists in biology departments,
so it probably depends on the search committee. ...Sometimes I think the departments would themselves not be able
to articulate a reason they hired a specific person. After all,almost every applicant is qualified, most are quite acceptable, but there’s only one slot. Makes for difficult andstrange voting patterns.
Anne Weil (anne.weil@okstate.edu - 23.10.07) also responded: If I may be forgiven a couple of plugs here, thoseof us in vp have another option – anatomy departments.
More and more positions for paleontologists are opening
up in medical schools because PhDs in human anatomy are
pretty much no longer awarded. Medical schools, needingvertebrate morphologists (and preferring those with active
research) do have openings for vertebrate paleontologists.
The downside is, one won’t be teaching solely paleo, andone will spend a week of lab with one’s hands in people’s
intestines. The up side is, the salary is usually much better
than those in arts and sciences. Start-up can be high, too. In
fact, we at OSU-CHS may be advertising a paleo-friendly
anatomy position very soon – watch this space! Dr. Kent
Smith and I are starting what amounts to a new VP program here in Tulsa. We are also looking for graduate students. Degrees here are in Biomedical Sciences, and wehave both master’s and PhD programs – of course students
will take Gross Anatomy and Histology, and have thechance to TA too, in order to develop teaching credentials.
Dr. Smith and I are both ‘classically trained’ paleontologists with degrees in Geology and Biology, but the exciting
thing here for students will be the chance to learn methods
more in use in biomedical fields and apply them to paleontological study. Anyone interested in the program here
should give me an e-mail.
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 23.10.07) added: I,
for one, would be delighted if we could get positions forvertebrate paleontologists over at our large medical center.
When I joined the faculty at UIC in the early 80s, there

were 5 other paleontologists on campus: a vertebrate paleontologist in my department, a paleobotanist and v.p. in biology, and a v.p. at the dental school. All have now retired
and have not been replaced. At the Urbana-Champaign
campus, there is still no replacement for Dan Blake. This
leaves me the only paleontologist in the entire UI system.
The issue extends to other areas of ‘natural history’. I
strongly recommend reading: Steven Vogel (1998). Academically correct biological science. American Scientist, 86(6): 504(http://www.americanscientist.org/).What Vogel says here is

extremely relevant to these discussions.
David Campbell (pleuronaia@gmail.com - 23.10.07)
further contributed: I had a paleobotanist from the Biology
Department on my PhD committee. I think most of the others I run across are vert, but I’m not too good at keeping up
with people’s exact affiliations - it’s just that in browsing
university websites I’ve spotted some paleo research areas
on the Biology Department page. With most mollusks having a good fossil record, the line between paleontologists
and neontologists is not too clear among my immediate taxonomic colleagues. In theory, invertebrate paleontologists
might have a shot at parasitology, agricultural entomology,
etc. positions. However, there don’t seem to be huge numbers of jobs in those fields, and the organisms of interest for
those don’t all have great fossil records.
Harold Lane (hlane@nsf.gov - 23.10.07), in response
to Jere Lipps’ points:
1. Jere is correct in saying that paleo is funded from a lotof sources at NSF. In addition to what he has stated, somepaleo is also supported in anthropology, in association withhominid research, and in geobiology and low-temperaturegeochemistry. I have kept figures on the number of paleontology proposals submitted to the SGP Program since I
first started at NSF, and in general stratigraphy and paleontology proposals have been submitted at a 60/40 ratio,
respectively. This has changed somewhat recently with theaddition of paleoclimate. Actually, paleoclimate has always
been there, but variously assigned to stratigraphy or paleontology. With the culling out of paleoclimate in the last
couple years, the split is more like 40/37/33. I have not kept
track of paleontology in other programs, but as Jere says,
it is public information and can be searched out on the NSF
website. I would be very happy if someone could compile
those figures.
2. Databases are largely funded through the Geoinformatics part of the Instrumentation and Facilities Program.
They carry the bulk of the budget if a paleo proposal succeeds in their competition. However, I am usually asked to
manage the grant if it is stratigraphic or paleontologic innature. The same is true with Assembling the Tree of Life
(AToL). In the case of AToL, the money comes from Biology, but I have usually managed those grants also. SGP’s
success rate is not unusually low at NSF and to make a
big deal out of it is probably not politic at this time, but asa community, you do need to keep pressure on the issue.
However, there are a few programs that have high successrates (+30%). Some of the causes for this might be: 1) a

Web-chatpreproposal phase that eliminates lower-scoring proposals
early on, 2) major contracts (ship construction, seismograph emplacements and the like), etc. that take most of
the money in a program, limiting the number of proposals
they receive and awards given. However, a portion of theseare programs that just have a lot of money and fewer proposals.
3. Jere is right. I am not even allowed to question overheadcharges.
4. Actually, our success rates have been in the mid-teens(14-16%) for a couple of years and last year it jumped to18%. It jumped because we had access to an additional $2.4
million of paleoclimate money that went toward paleoclimate grants. That money has disappeared this year. This
$2.4 million was shared with 3 other programs. The midteen success rates follow many years of rates at the 25-30%
level, so it has been somewhat of a bitter pill to swallow.
The average success rate across all of NSF is 15%, I am
told. I will not comment on Jere’s last point, but I will say,never resubmit a proposal without taking previous reviewers and panel comments into account. Modify your resubmission and build on the community input you received,
unless you think it is just wrong. If so, state that you think
the comments were wrong and that you do not agree.
5. I have suggested that some sort of hybrid programaround the theme of paleobiology be set up and cofundedby both the GEO and BIO Directorates. Breaking downwalls between such organizational entities is not that easy.
However, such a suggestion from the community outside
NSF would carry a lot more weight than I am able to giveit internally. Paleo is probably one of the most newsworthy
core science areas in GEO and BIO.
6. Programmatic funding levels at NSF are historical andno one is willing, or sees the need, to take a hard look at
how they might be readjusted (at any level of management). Budgets grow incrementally, except where one community might get a large infusion at a time of societal crisis(climate change, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tsunamis). That infusion is not taken away once the crisis
has passed. Some communities are very active, having
formed outside organizations that lobby Congress andmake frequent visits to NSF’s higher management. These
communities usually have a major societal scientificissue(s) they are addressing (hazards, weather, climatechange, earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc.) and they usually have large NSF-funded infrastructures (ships, planes,
seismographs, computing, etc.). Program Directors andfederal employees are not allowed by law to lobby. EAR
program budgets range from as high as $20mil (geophysics) down to $3.5mil (geomorphology), with disproportionate scientific population sizes and proposal loads
drawing on those budgets. The dollar break between directorates is Oceans - $350mil, Atmospheric - $250mil, Solid
Earth — $160mil. My impression is that there is little cognizance of the Earth’s sedimentary carapace and its importance to human existence and the evolution of life. Some
communities dominate running NSF (commonly physi-

65

cists), and in the GEO directorate, Oceans and Atmospherehave always held the Assistant Director’s position. Not
once has a solid Earth scientist (let alone a paleontologist)
been the head of GEO.
7. What is a saleable infrastructure scenario for ’paleo’? By
the way, the near-modern paleoclimatologists call themselves ‘paleos’ also, so be careful to understand when you
see or hear that term in the future just what community it
is referring to. Examples of infrastructures that are notreadily available to paleontologists and stratigraphers in the
US include: 1) a workhorse drilling program (it almost
seems that we can drill to the mantle easier than we canfund a series of shallow holes to test a soft rock or paleontologic hypothesis); 2) seismic reflection; 3) computing infrastructure, etc. What other kinds of infrastructure can wehave (fieldwork, fossil preparation, etc.). Once Congress
funds a major infrastructure package, NSF is obligated tofund the research that goes along with it. That is why Earthscope is taking so much of the available funds this year in
EAR.
8. Actually, Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology is in
the Surface Earth Processes Section of the Earth Science
Division. Earth Science is one of three divisions in the
GEO Directorate. The other two divisions are the Oceans
and Atmosphere. I know there is a lot of fear out there
about making waves at NSF, but Jere hit the nail on thehead, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Squeak long andsqueak loud. I gave you budgets for each of the Directorates above in [point] 6.
9. Paleo is well regarded from a media standpoint. We have
all the interesting things and I am commonly told that by
our press and media reps. Paleo needs to play to that strong
suit. Publish as much as you can in Science, Nature, PNAS,
etc., because that is what is monitored here at NSF. (Notethat when you join AAAS and AGU, you cannot choose to
be a paleontologist - it is not an option they present. I think
I’ve listed myself as a biological oceanographer when I
joined both. However, Science does accept and receives a
lot of good press with its prolific paleontology publications.) An argument I keep hearing here at NSF is that paleo
research is not competitive with other parts of EAR. I don’tknow how a paleo proposal can be compared to one in volcanology or geophysics, but it is an argument I commonlyhear. Actually, this is leveled largely at the entire Surface
Earth Processes Section (not just paleontology) by the deep
Earth people. There is no question that the revision of aparticular order of fossils or that the stratigraphic orderingand correlation of fossil occurrences does not sell as wellas it used to. But then it is the community through the Merit
Review process that is deciding that, not NSF. Biologicalpaleontology is a harder sell in GEO than a fossil projectthat is more geologically oriented. That is just the natureof the beast.
10. I agree 100% with this statement. Why does there haveto be 4+ watered down societies in the US that are discipline-specific when we could have one with a lot of clout.
Consider an international unified paleontology society, as,

66

Lees

for example, under IPA. It could provide a lot of international coordination with national funding agencies andmaximize international issues, which of course is the natureof paleontology.
11. Oceans and Atmosphere do a lot of soft money funding.
We cannot afford it in EAR.
12. NSF functions on a 5% overhead, which is nearly unheard of. That limits our staffing and travel. We have scantresources to study the history of major basins of sedimentation and the larger context they provide in understanding
the history of life.
13. I will be at GSA and more than happy to discuss theseissues with any of you in any venue.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 24.10.07) responded:Thanks for the informative responses. You fill important
gaps and clarify some misconceptions. This is exactly thesort of interaction we’d like to see. If we can build a line ofcommunication such as you have provided then we will all
be better off. NSF should be regarded as a friend of paleo,
but without input from both sides, it cannot be. ...I am
hopeful that Roger Thomas will continue to pursue his
ideas with the PS at its meeting next week.
A single large paleo society is attractive. Some may
suggest that it would dilute the impact of subdiscipline societies, but they could be sections of a larger organizationand operate semi-independently. This organization mightalso help us over the difficult publication and membershipissues that electronic journal access has caused and create
better representation in the job market. These are new issues for many societies and a single effort might be better
than a bunch of separate ones. It’s a good idea that deserves
discussion by the PS Council next week. In any case, theseissues of funding, jobs, publication, and subsidiary ones
are critical to our future, if it will be anything other thanmore of the same (which, I quickly add, is not all so bad),and a prompt discussion of them is desirable. I will bringit up as items for the agendas of the organizations I willmeet with, and I hope Roger and the PS Council will join
this effort with action next week too.
Peter Ward (argo@u.washington.edu - 24.10.07)
summed up: Thanks for keeping this string going Davidand Jere, and I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Roger
Thomas (and the other PS officers) for a lifetime of service to paleontology at who knows what cost in research, aswell as for the deep considerations of funding as well as
membership changes to reach out wider into the community.
There is much to a name in hiring, as David pointed
out. We now hire ‘geobiologists’ exclusively in the old
paleo slots at the University of Washington (there were two- John Rensberger and myself) and have hired as well inastrobiology (two more people, including ex-paleontologist Roger Buick). Getting a group together to discuss andultimately conduct research in either geobiology and/or astrobiology is a wonderful, multi-disiplinary experience,
where one can talk with many other disciplines not ordinarily in conversations with paleontologists. Add in our ex-cellent Curator of Invertebrate Fossils at our Burke Museum (Liz Nesbitt) and we have gotten the number of paleo
types to seven full time tenured or tenure track FTEs spreadout in three different administrative bodies. It just took awhile for the departments around here to see the light, as
well as getting necessary permission/paperwork to sharestudents across departmental boundaries.
As for biology departments, we paleontologists are indeed ‘evolutionary biologists’ (the name we used in hiringin Biology) - but the research path must include integration of molecular as well as more traditional systematics.
Another burgeoning new field is in biomarker work - Dr.
Ken Williford, just graduated from my school, and now on
a post-doc in Perth, Australia, in the large lab of Dr. Kliti
Grice, began with traditional paleontology of the T/J mass
extinction, moved into stable isotope analyses of boundary
sections, and then realized that biomarker work - establishing microbial ‘regimes’ before, during, and after themass extinction, enabled him to integrate the three. But the
down side, as we all well know, is that we are slowly losing the first-class ability to identify fossils in many groups,
as specialists retire or become fossils themselves. To thatend I think many of us should figure out ways to use digital photos to provide non-specialists ways of accurately
identifying key species. For example, in my old field(which I have returned to, joy of joys!) of Cretaceous ammonite systematics, there seem to be few or no new students conversant with cross sections, ornament, and suturelines. But there are ways to establish key identifications,such as for the Western Interior baculites and scaphitids
that Bill Cobban, Jim Kennedy and Neil Landman, among
others, have so ably described. The ImageJ program of NIH
can work wonders, if we can typify species by ranges ofmeasurable values from photographs as well as specimens.
Roger Thomas (roger.thomas@fandm.edu - 17.10.07)
contributed: Thanks to many of you who responded in avariety of very constructive ways to discussion of NSF andother funding of research and staff positions in paleontology, initiated by Peter Ward. Several contributors to the debate have noted that the balkanization of paleontology inNorth America limits the cohesion of our efforts. The PS isvery much aware of this problem. It was in part for this reason that the Society decided to change the longstanding
policy, enshrined in our constitution, that all members of
the PS must receive the Journal of Paleontology. Actually,
we have not abandoned this policy, we have enhanced it.
The PS Council decided that, as of January 1, 2007, membership in the PS, including electronic access to both the
Journal of Paleontology and Paleobiology, should be madeavailable for an annual membership fee of only $50. Student membership with the same privileges is available athalf that price and these fees have been maintained at thesame level for 2008. Full details of PS membership fees,
benefits of membership, and subscription rates for paper
copies of our journals are available on the PS website at
http://www.paleosoc.org/. Download the membership application as a pdf file, using the link on the left, to learn theWeb-chatfull benefits of membership. Then, you can join the Society electronically using the other link. The PS’s two journals are very different in character, as most of you will
know. However, both carry papers written by scholars
working in all subdisciplines of paleontology. Both journals are very highly regarded, serving the profession invery different ways. The PS has often been incorrectly
characterized as if it were an organization dedicated toserve the interests only of invertebrate paleontologists. In
fact, the Society seeks to serve the profession as a whole,as some of the actions noted in my earlier message show.
It is worth noting that positions are reserved on our Committee on Nominations and on the committees that assign
our awards for micropaleontologists, vertebrate paleontologists, and paleobotanists. Take a look at the lists of ourpast and current officers and winners of our awards, andyou will see that all fields are represented amongst them.
Jere Lipps, Peter Crane and Craig Black have served as
Presidents of the PS within the past dozen years. In short,the PS welcomes members from all subdisciplines of paleontology, as well as newly emerging interdisciplinary
fields, such as geobiology. Our mission is to advance thescience of paleontology, conceived in the broadest possible
terms.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 6.11.07) noted: Thislatest analysis of the growth in funding relates to discussions we’ve had here... : “Universities report stalled growthin Federal R&D funding in FY 2006” at
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07336/.
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 2.1.08) advertised:
According to Wired, two of the ‘Top 10 Scientific Breakthroughs of 2007’ are paleontological (http://www.wired.
com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/YE_10_breakthroughs/):
6. Soft Tissue from T. Rex Leg Bone Analyzed
This spring, the oldest patient in the pathology department
of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston was a
68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. For the first time,scientists have analyzed biological molecules from the ancient creatures. Working with soft tissue from a leg bonethat was extremely well-preserved in prehistoric Montana
sediments, John Asara read the chemical recipe of a protein that served as a springy structural element in the dinosaur’s bones. In the April 13 issue of Science, he and hiscolleagues compared the deadly predator to animals thatroam the earth today and concluded that it has a lot in common with chickens.
3. Mummified Dinosaur Excavated and Scanned
Paleontologists from England’s University of Manchester
have excavated the mummy of a nearly intact plant-eating
dinosaur. Preserved by minerals for over 65 million years,
the petrified body is in such pristine condition that the researchers could see a striped pattern on what remains of its
scales. The scientists transported the fossilized hadrosaur
this fall to a giant CT scanner in Canoga Park, California,
where technicians captured terabytes of 3-D images thathave already revealed surprises about the creature’s muscle

67

mass and the spacing of its bones. Tyler Lyson, now a graduate student in geology at Yale University, made the initialfind seven years ago while fossil hunting in the Hell Creek
Formation of North Dakota.
2. Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 23.10.07) noted:
I found the article that Flessa and his associate Dena Smithwrote for Paleontology in the 21st Century. This is online
at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/
rr/academia.html. Their data is from AGI’s surveys of geological departments, they discuss these trends, and they
have a few recommendations for job seekers... We stillneed up-to-date info and info on non-geological academic
paleontologists in biology, geography and medicine.
Alycia Stigall (stigall@ohio.edu - 23.10.07) replied:
The topic of funding and job opportunities in paleontology
has been a great one for this forum. I routinely advise new
invert paleo master’s students that walk bright-eyed into
my office with fuzzy plans of ‘maybe I’ll be a professor’ totake a serious look at that goal in light of the job market since they are usually blissfully unaware of the low numbers of tenure track positions. The low number of positions,however, seems to be largely a problem (and a significant
problem at that) for those people who wish to work in geology or biology departments, where systematists in general and specialities with low funding rates/grant dollars
are in decline. Medical schools, however, have not yet been
discussed in this thread, and they offer great opportunities
for vertebrate paleontologists. One place that I have seen
many of my colleagues and their students find excellent
employment opportunities are in medical schools - this ofcourse applies mostly to vertebrate paleontologists. But ourstudents at Ohio University that are trained to teach grossanatomy have been very successful in finding employment.
In fact, we have also used this to increase our complementof paleontologists on campus. This year, Ohio University
has 15 paleontology faculty across campus in four departments, 3 in geology (1 retired), 2 in botany (1 retired), 1 inbiology, and 9 in the biomedical department of our medical school (there’s more info on our group paleo website
at www.ohiou.edu/paleo). Reaching this size of a paleo
contingent has involved specific efforts by our vertebrate
faculty to encourage young vp PhDs to apply, and the end
result is a really vibrant interdisiciplinary group of paleontology faculty who share strong research interests in evolutionary biology, biogeography, and paleoecology acrossclades. I would suggest that if your campus has a med
school, you might consider encouraging young vp PhDs toapply for your positions or just take a walk across campus,
you might be pleasantly surprised by new colleagues you
may encounter there.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 23.10.07) responded:Thanks, Alycia, for discussing this aspect of academic employment in better detail. It’s an important thing to remember - vertebrate paleontologists really know theiranatomy so wherever anatomists are required, they should
apply. I addressed only academic positions, but included in

68

Lees

that (mentally) vertebrate paleontologists. I am not surethey were included in Flessa’s analysis however, but theywould add some more positions to that 480 figure. Doesanyone know how many vps are employed in med schools?
I also did not discuss museums, environmental impact
firms, environmental monitoring, teachers in general, outreach opportunities, federal administrative jobs in NSF,
NASA and other agencies, and a few others. All of thesemay provide rewarding employment of one kind or another.
One thing I am sure of: You won’t get a job if you don’t
apply. So apply for everything that looks good to you. Do
it right, however, so your chances are improved. Academia
is changing fast. It’s becoming more corporate, encumbered by more non-academic tasks and labor, more efforts
all the way down to assistant professors for fund raising,and along with all that, more political. While I will not discuss these, professors advising students should.
John Pojeta (pojetaj@si.edu - 23.10.07) responded:
Check the JP (1991, 65: 347-354) for other numbers.
3. Suellen Cook (sscook@utas.edu.au - 8.11.07) advertised: ...I thought some of you may be interested to hear
about the research I am doing as part of my PhD here at
the University of Tasmania (Australia). Much has been
made of the various morphotypes that investigators havefound when studying Emiliania and the like in the Northern Hemisphere. I (and others) have found a number fromthe Southern Hemisphere. It appears that, specifically, theType B/C can be found almost exclusively within theSouthern Ocean and particularly around the sub-Antarctic
Front (>50˚S). Overcalcified versions of Type A have also
arisen in culture and from preserved samples. So far, nowork has been available to assess the genetic basis of thisparticular morphotype.
My research was inspired by the microsatellite work
published by Iglesias-Rodrigues et al. (2006), where theintraspecific genetic diversity of 83 Northern Hemispherestrains and 4 Southern Hemisphere strains was investigated, using 10 microsatellite markers they had developed
previously. I have since constructed a culture collection of
469 strains, consisting of strains from across the Southern
Ocean, from the East Australian Current (Pacific Ocean),coastal Tasmania and the Zeehan Current (Indian Ocean),extracted their DNA and am starting to use the IglesiasRodrigues et al. markers to characterise the genetic diversity within and between these populations. Considering theresults that were published in by Iglesias-Rodrigues et al.,and some preliminary (but incomplete) data from a subsetof my cultures, I anticipate some very interesting results,
particularly in respect of strains originating from aroundthe Polar Front. I intend, once the population genetics
analysis is complete, to further investigate any genetic variability in respect of the photophysiology and morphology
of a select group of strains.
If any members are interested in supporting my research through advice/contacts/experience, etc., I would bevery appreciative of your input. I welcome your feedback

on my project.
Jeremy Young (j.young@nhm.ac.uk - 8.11.07) responded: Hi - nice to see there is an Australian cocco research group getting going – I have been in touch with
Joanna Cubillos as well. I am working with Ian Probert andKyoko Hagino on E. huxleyi variability and it will certainly
be good to collaborate.
Maria Triantaphyllou (mtriant@geol.uoa.gr 8.11.07) added: We are also looking for E. huxleyi morphotypes in the Aegean Sea (eastern Mediterranean). We
have observed overcalcified type A in winter samples. I
would be interested in your research.
4. Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 27.11.07) said:
With the help of Cindy Martinez of AGI, I have compiled
the distribution of ranks among paleontologists, geochemists, and geophysicists listed in the current version of
the AGI Directory of Geoscience Departments. This was
an attempt to update the information compiled by Karl
Flessa and Dean Smith in 1997 (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/
hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/rr/academia.html). Although
not exactly comparable, the numbers suggest that the trends
they identified have persisted. See table below. We are agraying field (it’s not just me personally)!
Paleontologists
Geophysicists
Geochemists

Assist. Prof. Assoc. Prof. Full Prof. Emeritus
81
127
333
184
126
133
406
126
129
142
313
100

Distribution of faculty by rank in the 2007 Directory of Geoscience Departments. Full professors include those listed as Heads or Chairs.

Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 27.11.07) responded:That’s interesting data, Roy. If I read the columns right, wehave 541 active faculty, and this would be an increase of 60
and 62 over Flessa’s figures of 481 (1980) and 479 (1995).
Is this good news for us, or has AGI tabulated the figuresdifferently between between 1995 and now? If AGI, Flessa
and you did it the same way, then we should be happy.
Someone should do your study, Roy, over the past 13 years
to see how this addition was added — i.e., gradually or inpunctuations (I assume no Signor/Lipps effects!). And why
would this be? Perhaps more institutions coming on line
and hiring paleontologists, or are they new additions to olddepartments or new departments within old institutions hiring paleontologists? My optimism is running away withme, so I suspect that something is wrong. What do you
think Roy?
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 27.11.07) replied: I
would be very hesitant to make too much of this yet. My
impression is that the AGI Directory has become more andmore inclusive. The total data are not really comparable,in that Flessa & Smith restricted their analyses to 540 institutions that were in the 1980 directory. I don’t have theirlist (Karl? Dena?), so I don’t know if I have the same institutions. I do have institution names, as well as a breakdown by discipline (e.g. vert. paleo.), and other ranks, suchas adjuncts and lecturers. If you add all those individuals in,Web-chatplus museum and survey scientists, the total number morethan doubles. I tried to keep this first pass restricted to the
traditional academic ranks. I will try to produce a more detailed analysis soon. I will be glad to take suggestions ofwhat people would like to see.
Harold Lane (hlane@nsf.gov - 28.11.07) commented:
I am surprised this data implies the paleo population in academic positions is rather stable. Has the Lone Paleontologist syndrome strengthened or weakened? If universities
are not replacing paleontologists, and we are graying as apopulation, then we should expect an impending downturnin numbers. Is it real this time? I have been hearing the‘graying sirens’ for at least 25 years and a real serious
downturn in numbers still hasn’t happened. Can we project
future trends? If so, how can we manage these trends
to paleo’s benefit? Lots of questions this community should
be considering as a population, and working together tobenefit the entire science. We have too many splinter societies and not enough working across these artificial boundaries. It is my opinion that these artificial ‘turf’ boundaries
are debilitating the paleosciences as a whole.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 28.11.07) replied:
My interest is in the total number of academic positions
and how they have grown or declined over the decades. If
Flessa did not get all of the academic institutions, thensomeone needs to go back and do it again. If he did, thenwe need the same data (not the same institutions, althoughthat would be interesting, to know if they added or lost positions and why) for all institutions today. The kind of employers is the only item that needs to be comparable for thiskind of data — i.e., earth science departments and not biology or other departments, unless they were also included(they were not, since Flessa used the AGI Earth Science
Directory). We should also tabulate the same data for allother employers of paleontologists. All of this is critical for
those of us advising students. Every one of them wants toknow where they can get a job. Right now, other than for
academia and museums, that’s hard info to get. We alsoneed this information to plan curricula and departmental
goals. If no jobs exist for paleontologists, we have a hardrow to hoe in justifying replacements or additions on educational criteria (others may exist, like research goals).
Rich’s question about replacing paleontologists cannot beanswered yet.
I suspect we may be headed for hard times, if we remain passive. Universities in America are developing ‘evaluation criteria’ for programs and individual faculty toassess their contributions to the teaching programs and to
student success. This does not bode well for a great many
disciplines. (Run a search in Ask.com on ‘Commission on
the Future of Higher Education’ or ‘Spellings Commission’for info and comments on this movement nationally.) We
need to be prepared to effectively take part in this discussion at the departmental and college levels with solid data
about what we do and where.
We are not the only greying discipline, of course. I suspect that many disciplines that grew in the 50s and 60s are69

grey, including physics and chemistry. Molecular biology
will grey soon too. A greying population is good for students, since they will have jobs if we can justify keeping
those positions. This should be easier to do in Earth science departments where we can make a case that modern
paleo addresses how the biosphere interacted with Earthprocesses. In modern biology departments, with components of molecular biology, bioengineering, and so manyother developing or exciting fields, paleo will be threatenedby greater needs elsewhere. Again, data on who we are,how many we are, and what we do is critical. Keep on digging, Roy. It is important that we have this info. NSF
knows that — they collect all kinds of data like this for science, but not at the paleo level.
Peter Sheehan (sheehan@mpm.edu - 28.11.07)
added: Another positive feature may be present in Roy’s
data. Paleontology has far more assistant professors relative
to tenured professors than geochem or geophysics. We areless gray than these fields, and this does not rely on comparisons with past data. (Or paleontologists don’t maketenure as often.)
Paleo
GeophysGeochem

184 Assistants, 460 tenured
126 Assistants, 539 tenured
100 Assistants, 455 tenured

Anne Weil (anne.weil@okstate.edu - 28.11.07) asked:
My question would be whether paleontology is ‘graying’in general, or if – as I suspect is the case – younger paleontologists are more likely to be employed in biology departments.
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 28.11.07) explained:...I have parsed this further to remove state surveys and museums, including those associated with departments. The
following thus includes university, college and community
college departments (paleontologists only):
Assistant:
Associate:
Full:
Emeritus:

65
114
274
154

Again, use caution in comparing this with Flessa & Smith’s
numbers, since I don’t have their list of departments.
5. Paul Palmqvist (ppb@uma.es - 6.12.07) stated:
Several postings on Paleonet during the last weeks dealt in
the uncertain future of paleontology as a scientific discipline, given the loss of academic positions and researchfunding. In the past, I have heard reproaches from other
Spanish scientists who think that we paleontologists are always in conflict (this would ultimately result from the low
number of Spanish paleontologists, which translates into
everybody knowing all other colleagues, and this seems tolead some of us to consider them as potential competitors).
On this matter, I think that Paleonetters should know what
has happened to one of our colleagues, Dr. Manuel Mendoza, during his work in an institution recently created in
Spain, the Catalan Institute of Paleontology, directed by Dr.
Salvador Moyà Solà. Manuel collaborates with me in theecomorphology and palaeoecology of ungulates, the subject of his PhD thesis dissertation in 2002, after which he

70

Lees

was awarded a Fulbright Grant at Brown University. Allother scientists who have collaborated with Manuel also
consider the treatment that he has received in this institution as unfair. These include, for example, Dr. Miquel De
Renzi (Professor of Paleontology), Dr. Miguel Ángel Medina (Associate Professor of Biochemistry), Dr. Carlos Criado (Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics), Dr.
Raimundo Real (Associate Professor of Animal Biology)
and Dr. Carlos Cotta (Associate Professor of Languages
and Computation Sciences). In the following letter, written by Manuel, you can find the details.
“Dear colleagues, On May 1, 2007 I was contracted in
the Catalan Institute of Paleontology (ICP) as staff scientist
by his Director, Dr. Salvador Moyà Solà, for a period of
three years, joining the research group headed by Dr. Meike
Köhler, his wife, to work on evolution of life history (amatter in which I had little experience at that moment) andcontinue my work on theoretical evolution and ecomorphology. After a period of seven months, I have contributed
to the scientific production of the ICP with a paper published in a journal included in SCI records (other two are
currently in review), an article in a book edited by Dr. Norman MacLeod, and four communications presented toworkshops held in three different countries. The goal ofthis letter is to report that I have been dismissed now fromthe ICP for defending some results of a research which apparently are in conflict with the personal expectancies ofDr. Moyà Solà and, specially, of Dr. Köhler. The latter has
a close collaboration with Dr. Lloyd Demetrius, Professor
at Harvard University and member of the Max Plank Institute. Dr. Demetrius suggested me to implement a computermodel with which his Directionality Theory had been confirmed (Kowald & Demetrius, 2005. Proc. R. Soc. B, 272). Afterthe examination of the model, I realized that it has serious
errors. Once implemented, in collaboration with Dr. Carlos
Cotta – an expert in evolutionary computation - we confirmed the scope of these failures. This conclusion, as wellas the development of a new alternative model, were initially received with pleasure by Dr. Köhler. However, according to the reaction of Dr. Köhler and Dr. Moyà Solàwhen she came back from a visit to Harvard, Dr. Demetrius
was in disagreement with our results. Dr. Moyà Solà accused me then of putting in danger the collaboration withthis important scientist. He argued that “how could I put indoubt the knowledge of an expert who has been working
during decades in the matter, if you had no idea about demography four months ago?”. Obviously, this is a new version of the old Principle of Authority, which isincompatible with the nature of science and its method,something that should not happen at the beginning of the
21st Century. Dr. Moyà Solà ordered me to follow the instructions of Dr. Köhler and, when I tried to defend myself
and explain my position, he rescinded my contract with the
ICP. Officially, I have been dismissed for organizational
reasons, and others with an even more difficult justification have been argued, including my lack of integration in
the research group headed by Dr. Köhler (she is now the

only member of this team). I want to express that it is notcoherent or humane to contract me for three years, to encourage me for moving from a distant city with all my family (I have two children in school age, my wife had to left
her job, etc.) and now, seven months later, to be fired out
for organizational reasons. Moreover, this is not an isolated
fact. Only two months ago, Victor Fernandez Tascón, whocame also from a distant city, was contracted for three years
to perform a PhD thesis under the direction of Dr. Köhler.
Shortly after, he was pressed to leave the ICP without apparent reasons, since I can testify to his capacity and dedication. It is worth noting that Victor and I were, up to thatdate, the only collaborators of Dr. Köhler in the ICP.
Manuel Mendoza”
Carlos Cotta (ccottap@lcc.uma.es - 6.12.07) responded: In regard to the incidents [experienced] by Dr.
Manuel Mendoza during his stay in the Catalan Institute of
Paleontology (ICP), I want to confirm some of the points
that he exposed, of which I have been an indirect witness,because these incidents were put in my knowledge while
they were taking place, before the dismissal of Dr. Mendoza. For approximately four months, Dr. Mendoza and I
have been collaborating on models of life history based on
the work of Dr. Demetrius and collaborators. During thistime, we arrived at some conclusions about the algorithmic
model of Kowald & Demetrius that make it unrealistic.
Following these observations, Dr. Mendoza explained tome, in different conversations, a series of problems that he
was having in the ICP, as a consequence of these conclusions, being even afraid of losing his job, after having beenscolded by Dr. Moyà for contradicting a renowned investigator of the area (Dr. Demetrius), seemingly compromising the collaboration of him with the ICP. Sadly these[fears] were demonstrated to be founded. It is lamentable
that, in these moments in which the science community is
so concerned about scientific excellence, not only the scientific career of a young scientist is interrupted so unfairly,
but also he and his family suffer this personal damage.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 6.12.07) commented: Clearly, if this is true, Spanish science is in deep
trouble. Alternative hypotheses and testing is what scienceis, and scholarly freedom to do that is essential. This cannot bode well for science there or for the people involved.
It is often the sign of an immature or insecure science.
However, that too is a hypothesis based on one side, andsometimes there’s another side. I’d not want to condemn
my Spanish colleagues without knowing more. The general topic of suppression of alternative views is worth talking about on PaleoNet because it happens a lot, even in mycountry. Here it’s based on egos trying to win, more thananything else. Kind of a result of the human condition andwithout which science would not advance much. That’s
why we all need to be on guard all the time for this kind ofthing.
6. Joana Cubillos (joanacc@postoffice.utas.edu.au 13.12.07) asked: For the purpose of studying absoluteWeb-chatabundance [of nannos] in core sediment samples, I havebeen using a filtering technique similar to that of Andruleit(1996). As I just had access to his article, I realised I
haven’t added the use of a rotary sample splitter. I amaware that it promotes even particle density, but could anyone explain to me further advantages of it? My problem isthat I haven’t got access to one, so my concern is whether
this part of the process is crucial, or in fact can be omitted
without major damage to the whole analysis, and whether
my results could be still subject to comparison with otheranalyses.
Jeremy Young (j.young@nhm.ac.uk - 13.12.07) responded: A rotary sample splitter is a nice piece of kit if
you have one, but the simple alternative is to mix the sample well then subsample a known volume using a micropipettor. The error in sampling will probably beminimal, and less than those from counting, inconsistentpreservation, etc. To control for possible errors, you can doseveral replicate samplings of one preparation and observe
the variation in your results.
7. Jeremy Young (j.young@nhm.ac.uk - 8.1.08) advertised: With much encouragement from Mike Styzen, I
have been slowly getting to grips with an interactive online database system being hosted by the NHM as part ofan EU program - EDIT (European Distributed Institute of
Taxonomy). It’s taken a while, but there is now a reasonably functional prototype system live on the web callednannotax (www.nannotax.org) with fairly comprehensive
coverage of Neogene nannofossil taxonomy. There isplenty more to do to the site but it is in a state which isworth launching, especially as I hope people will help withit. [See advert, p.34]
8. John Laurie (John.Laurie@ga.gov.au - 25.1.08)
volunteered: Part of my job is to provide standardised timescales for my organisation and in so doing I have to familiarise myself with lots of rather arcane names of stages
from all over the place. All seem reasonable and sensible tome, considering my limited knowledge of most of the timescale; that is until one gets into the Carboniferous. Here wehave a system unlike any other in its subdivision. It is divided into the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian as one
would expect, but these are categorised as subsystems, eachof which has three series. Five of these six series correspond exactly to single stages in the Carboniferous. The
only justification seems to be that the “terminology is flexible, because if any of the longer stages are later subdivided
into two or more globally recognised stages, then the current stage name would be elevated in rank to series withequivalency (sic) to the positional series name” (Heckel &Clayton, 2006, p.404). If it is the case that such flexibility
is needed, then why do no other subcommissions seem tothink it necessary in their part of the time-scale where someof the stages are almost as long and perhaps equally likely
to be subdivided? The Upper Cretaceous series does notneed to be of Subsystem rank just in case the Campanian71

may be subdivided at some future time. The Upper Triassic series seems to cope reasonably well with the Norianstage being subdivided into the Lacian, Alaunian and Sevatian substages. What is wrong with using substages ifsuch a refinement of the Visean were to eventuate? I realise
there were all sorts of political considerations which may
have caused such a camel of an outcome, but there werepolitical considerations in other systems as well and the results of those deliberations necessarily dispensed withmany a security blanket, despite squeals of protest. We now
have the Carboniferous divided into two subsystems, comprising six series and seven stages. To have two levels in ahierarchy which are effectively (~83.3%) the same is ludicrous. The Pliocene is an epoch subdivided into Lower,
Middle and Upper, each of which comprises one stage. I
don’t hear anyone shouting that the Pliocene should be elevated to subsystem rank, or the late Pliocene should be elevated to series rank. Surely to do so would cause people
to point and laugh, or to suggest that one hadn’t taken one’s
medication. While the above may seem outrageous to those
who are not Carboniferous-neutral, the current ‘system’
seems silly to me. However, I would welcome any arguments to show me where I may be in error.
9. Omar Ahmed al Badrani (omar_badrani@
yahoo.com - 2.2.08) asked: …I began work in Cenozoic
calcareous nannofossils, and it is the first PhD in this workin my country. There are very few references available tome, and I need information about anything relevant to helpme…can you send to me books or papers or other informations, please? (Dept. of Geology, College of Science,
Mosul University, Mosul, Iraq).
10. Bryan Ladner (bryan.ladner@gmail.com 2.2.08) asked: Was anyone aware that they are selling digital reprints of Plankton Stratigraphy? Amazon shows it as
in stock for US$95. Anyone have a new copy and wish tocomment on the quality? Here’s a link: http://www.amazon.com/Plankton-Stratigraphy-Cambridge-EarthScience/dp/0521367190/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=bo
oks&qid=1202006047&sr=8-1It’s.
Jackie Lees (j.lees@ucl.ac.uk - 7.2.08) responded:
Along with Bryan, having recently seen a very poor quality reprint of the ‘black book’ (Ed. Bown, 1998) – the plates
look to have been photocopied on an ancient copier in needof a new toner cartridge! – selling for GBP90, I would beinterested also to hear about the quality of the new Plankton Strat. Has the [new and used] price (from US$67.33)
got anything to do with the quality? As some of you may
remember, I tried for about 18 months to get CUP to produce a new version of this, or to sign the copyright over tothe INA, but was unsuccessful. Now, it seems, they havetaken a unilateral decision to squeeze some more moneyout of this without consulting anyone – although, interestingly, this book is not available on the UK Amazon website…
Alicia Kahn (kahn@chevron.com - 22.2.08) replied:

72

Lees

We just bought a copy of the reprinted Plankton Stratigraphy. It is simply a scanned copy of the book, but the quality of the photographs remains pretty good. The text
actually copied worse than the photos.
11. Mario Cournoyer (paleovision@videotron.ca 3.2.08) enquired: We are looking into buying a stereomicroscope, but we have not a lot of funding (in fact nonewhatsoever), the only money comes from donations andmembership fees. Anyway, we would like to have some
opinion on the AMscopes found on eBay. Has anyone
worked with one of these, are they reliable? Also what typeof lighting is best for taking pictures (with the digital camera they fit with the microscopes), fluorescent, led light orfiber optic?
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 13.2.08) responded:
Fiber optic [lighting] is best. We use it for live and deadforams. Make sure your camera is set properly and playaround with the light.
Aidan Karley (aidan_karley@mail.ru - 22.2.08)
replied: In the past, I have bought my own ‘scope, for personal use and for rental to go offshore for cuttings examination. Spending my own money, and living in Aberdeen,
I felt obligated to get performance per penny. As it was, I
actually managed to make a profit on the deal with just amonth of renting it out. Then the burglars had it. Without alink to a specific item, I’m not sure what exactly you’relooking at. I see a lot from a supplier calling himself ‘lowestpricemicroscopes’, such as item 190199788509; arethese comparable to what you’re seeing? These do look to
be a fairly good deal. I wouldn’t spend my money thesedays on a ‘scope which didn’t have trinocular capability. I
don’t have a digital camera which has fittings for mounting
onto other devices, but I spent £200 (about $390, excluding postage) of a client’s money on a camera specificallyfor cuttings and core photography at the wellsite. (While
shopping, I used one of those aide memoire grain size cards
to test the camera; if the photographs are capable of distinguishing the ‘fine sand’ graphic from the ‘very fine sand’,
I considered that acceptable; a 6-mega-pixel sensor on adigital SLR body did the business, I’d have to check myexpenses paperwork to find if it was a Fuji or a Panasonic.
But that’s a sideline - any decent camera can be fitted up toa ‘scope for around £40 of parts.)
What I bought with my own money was a Russianmade ‘scope system with the series number ‘MBC-10’.
There’s one on eBay at the moment as item 250217708016.
As a ‘scope, it’s perfectly respectable, though this one lacks
the trinocular adaptor (it’s a modular design that stacks one
element on top of the next; the trinocular adaptor is just one
more unit in the stack) but it does appear to have everything else, including the totally useless arm rests. It doesn’t have zoom, but it does have 10 different magnifications
available. Many of my colleagues fear the idea of a nonzoom microscope, but if you’re doing documentary microphotography, then being able to read the magnification
off the side of the scope is, to my mind, an advantage. My

colleagues may disagree, but they didn’t have to decide
whether to spend money; I did. Finding a trinocular headfor this may be a regular [pain]; the company I bought minefrom now lists it as a discontinued model. Pity. About 6
months after the burglars had my ‘scope, I was sent to a
job in Siberia (the Shell-Yukos Salym joint venture) where
I was to train-up a crew of local geologists. They’d bought
one of these systems, which we made extensive use of. It
works; it’s economical. ...I see from http://www.microscopes.com/ms-la-mi-sf.html that this ‘scope is still available in the States, with the trinocular adaptor.
I’d prefer to use a poor microscope with a good lightover a good microscope and a poor light. I actually carry adiving mini-torch in my rig bag because I’ve had to spend
so many headache-inducing hours using inadequate illumination. (I use a diving torch for other reasons - I sometimes need light in explosive atmospheres, so I need tocarry an EEx-D rated torch.) The illuminators included inmost stereo ‘scopes (and I have to include the MBC-10 inthis category) are [rubbish]. They’re simply not worth bothering with. My preferred illuminator is a twin-swan-neckfibre-optic system, using a halogen bulb for a good, whitelight. This page http://www.labtek.net/Dolan-Jenner.htm#
Fiber%20Optic%20Illuminators has several such about
half way down. From my experience, these are the RollsRoyce ... of illuminators. They also cost hundreds of quid.
If I get one, I happily use it. but when I’m kitting up a laboratory to go offshore, I put in two little desk lamps withhalogen lamps. Cost about £10 each, and you can get thelamps at the local hardware store. Fit for purpose and value
for money. Being able to get replacement lamps easily isimportant. Which is another reason for me having a torch
in my rig bag. 300km out at sea is not within reach of yourlocal hardware store. For photographic illumination, you
can generally achieve adequate illumination with severalof the desk lamps; you often need to re-position the lamps
to get a good contrast of light and shade on the subject.
Flexibility is good in this context - again, multiple desk
lamps are a fit-for-purpose and economical solution. If you
are doing film photography, you can normally rig up an external flash gun to a wired fitting on your camera body. But
most DSLRs (all?) don’t have this fitting, since they havean integrated flash gun. Which is almost totally useless for
microphotography. Almost. Your camera store should be
able to find a device called a flash slave adaptor (my regular can’t-be-bothered-to-search-in-detail camera store hasthem at http://www.jessops.com/Store/s9094/0/SlaveUnits/Jessops/Minicell-Slave-Universal/details.aspx)
which you then rig up with an off-the-shelf flash gun (on amini-tripod?) aimed at the microscope stage and with theslave sensor where it’ll be illuminated by the camera’s
flash. With a little practice and careful record keeping, you
should be able to get reproducible results. It’s not easy, but
it’s not rocket science either…
12. Bruno Granier (granierbruno@orange.fr 16.2.08) contributed: The ‘subject’ of my message mightWeb-chatlook provocative! I did it on purpose in order to initiate a
discussion on a set of nomenclatural problems that probably deserve to be solved. Among them, the question of thenature of the type(s) and variety of ‘types’ (holo-, lecto-,
para-, topo-, pleiso-) has been partly addressed and will
generate more discussion. I would like to address 2 otherproblems:
1. Suppose that we are dealing with a fossil genus (A) that
includes several species: the revision of the type-species
leads us to consider it should be ascribed to another preexisting genus (B). (A) is therefore considered as a juniorsynonym of (B). All species ascribed to (A) should betransfered into (B). The author of the revision did not revised the remaining species ascribed to (A), but
1.1. provides the new combinations for all of them. He is
considered as the author of the new combinations, isn’t he?
1.2. did not provide any new combinations for all of them.
Can he be considered as the author of the new combinations? Or would it be the first person that published the‘transliteration’ (that is, who gave the new combination
without a preliminary revision of the species, but just to
take into account the synonymy at the generic level)? (Example: the numerous species formerly ascribed to the fossil
red
algae
Archaeolithothamnium[withArchaeolithothamnium rude as the type-species] and their
new combinations with the modern genus Sporolithon!)
2. The type of a species is lost, the description is poor
(XIXth Century), the type-locality includes several [similar-]looking forms, and it is not possible to discriminate
which is the closest to the type, the type-locality cannot befound, none of the generic or suprageneric diagnostic features are visible on the material...The Code(s) of Nomenclature (Botanical and Zoological) list some conserved
names, as well as rejected names. Rejected names are theones that did not fit with the Code and those that were rejected in favor of a conserved name, but there is no ‘category’ to list names that are effectively abandoned, andwhile establishing lists of species, we still find these ‘onetime-quoted’/‘no longer used’ forms which are just ‘polluting the scene’. I cannot remember where and when I readthat they were given an informal category name by analogy
to some software (‘Abandonware’ refers to computer software that is no longer claimed, owned, or copyrighted).
Would you support the implementation of such a category?
Pierre Kruse (Pierre.Kruse@nt.gov.au - 20.2.08) responded: To address your second question, there is alreadya category for taxa that are poorly understood to the extent
that they are unrecognisable: nomen dubium. The easy way
to deal with such a taxon is to treat it as a nomen dubium,and then proceed taxonomically as if that taxon did notexist. You will run the ‘risk’ that the nomen dubium will
eventually be properly diagnosed (e.g. according to Article 75.5), which may make some of your new taxa juniorsubjective synonyms. The longer way is to apply to the
ICZN to have the nomen dubium either suppressed, or aneotype specimen nominated, which adequately characterises the taxon (Article 75.5). This will definitively rid

73

the scene of the ‘polluting’ taxonomic name.
John Laurie (John.Laurie@ga.gov.au - 20.2.08) answered Bruno Granier:1. If type species of genus A is revised by Jones and it isconsidered that it is better assigned to genus B, then unlessstatements to the contrary are made by Jones, it is assumed
that all other species of genus A are assigned to genus B.
However, you should realise that this may only be a matter of opinion and that Smith may not agree with Jones.
Smith may maintain that the type species of genus A is notbetter assigned to genus B. The concept of genus A still exists and it has a type species, even if everyone in that field
now agrees with Jones that that type species is better assigned to genus B. Rather than dealing in such hypothetical situations, I find it more instructive to deal with realexamples. Has anyone got some good examples?
1.1. As far as invertebrates go, this doesn’t matter; it is dealt
with in synonymy lists. From my experience, little attention
is paid to the initiator of a new combination where it is simply a matter of subjective synonymy.
1.2. See above.
2. If the type of a species is lost, and if there is other material available which is of fairly good quality, you can selectone of these as a neotype. Even if there are several similarlooking species at the type locality, you can still select aneotype from among that material. It doesn’t matter. The
specimen you select as neotype becomes the type of thespecies. End of story, unless, of course, someone subsequently finds the original type specimen in their backyard
shed. If the type of a poorly understood species still exists,
but shows no features which can allow it to be distinguished from, say, a pebble (e.g. Grandagnostus vermontensis Howell), then you should illustrate the specimen,
demonstrate that it cannot be characterised in any substantial way, restrict the specific and generic names to that single specimen, then effectively forget about it until you haveto compile a treatise volume. Eventually everybody will
get the message, the names will fall into disuse and after atime you can apply to the ICZN to have the name officiallygiven the boot. In the interim, there is no real need to keepa list of dodgy names. The people who work in the particular phylum, class or order will know the name is no longer
used, so there seems to be little point in keeping a register,although I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
13. Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 20.2.08)
opined: To those who don’t receive American Paleontologist, here is a link to an opinion piece on the status of the
field I just published there: http://tigger.uic.edu/~plotnick/AmerPaleoEssay.pdf. There [is] a follow-up essay in
Palaeo. Elect. (2008. A Somewhat Fuzzy Snapshot of Employment in Paleontology in the United States. 11(1); http://palaeoelectronica. org/2008_1/toc.htm)....[the upshot being]:“paleontology as a discipline has numerous strengths andopportunities but has clear weaknesses and is facing significant threats, not the lease of which is the erosion offunding and positions. The issues and suggestions raised a

74

Lees

decade [ago] by Flessa & Smith remain. Continued efforts
to address these issues, by our societies, by high profile paleontologists, such as members of the National Academyof Sciences, and by the community as a whole are necessary”.
Aidan Karley (aidan_karley@mail.ru - 22.2.08) responded: In article mailman.1.1203595211.1134.paleonet@nhm.ac.uk, Roy Plotnick wrote: “A related
weakness is the marked decline of paleontology at major
oil companies. At one time, most companies had large inhouse paleontological programs for paleoecology and biostratigraphy, including associated databases and collections.
Today, many of these programs are either gone or muchsmaller, with much of the work being contracted out. Farley & Armentrout (2000) noted that the number of paleontologists employed at major oil companies declined 90%
from 1985 to 2000! They also pointed to the accompanying decline of oil company support for paleontological research at universities...”. The broad brush of my initialcomment is - sure, the oil companies themselves don’t employ many bug watchers themselves (Shell UK has only 3
or 4, for example). But they don’t do much microscope
time themselves - they’ll typically have around one bug
watcher out on a rig somewhere (with several projects inwork at any one time), with however many others slaving
away over a hot microscope in North Wales on backgroundwork. I’d be more concerned over the prospect of a Tunguska-esque event over North Wales seriously decimating
the European bug watching community. There’s a strange
concentration of companies working in this field in thatarea - more than the ‘Robertson’s’ effect could realisticallyexplain...
Martin Farley (mbfarley@hal-pc.org - 22.2.08) responded: Farley & Armentrout (2000) compiled figures forpaleontologists working for oil companies in North America, so Karley’s comments are parallel but not directly relevant. We had accurate numbers for paleontologicalstaffing by company in North America over the period covered by our article. I presume the trends would have been
similar for paleontologists outside North America in nonstate oil companies. Much worldwide oil industry paleo
was done by paleontologists in North America, however.
The numbers didn’t include consultants, who now do muchof the microscope work in North America. While we don’t
have good historical numbers for consultants, consultants
have existed for a long time. There was no reason to believe that the loss of company paleontologists was even remotely balanced by an increase in the number ofconsultants. Thus, there has been a striking populationcrash to near-extinction levels in industry paleontology.
The disappearance of the support for research and education offered to academia by oil companies in the ‘olddays’ remains a loss to the profession. As Plotnick points
out, many academic institutions are very good at counting
money, so an alternate source to limited governmental
funding would be valuable.
It might be time to revisit the paleontological numbers

at oil companies. The numbers couldn’t fall much fromtheir 2000 levels (can’t really go below ‘zero’). Some oilcompanies have hired paleontologists since our article, although this may really just balance losses (e.g., retirements). While I have good contacts in the industry, I havenot been employed there since before Farley & Armentrout(2000) appeared. The Geotimes article resulted in a solicitation to Armentrout and me to write an article for the industry trade journal Offshore in 2002. This article wasmostly a description aimed at industry managers on how
to use paleontology effectively. After discussion with thejournal editor, I added a sidebar on the changes to the training and development of industry paleontologists. Basically,
it described how the old system of training paleontologists
for and in the industry was broken (including that North
American consultants historically started as oil company
paleontologists) and it was not clear what new system
would appear. Oil industry support was not merely in biostratigraphy, but for some groups (e.g. dinoflagellates) involved fundamental research on systematics and basic
morphology. This research was done inhouse at oil companies as well as in supported academic institutions. As
Plotnick notes, the end of this effort over the last 20 years
in the oil industry reinforces the weaknesses that have developed in these areas in academia...
Georgiana Wingard (lwingard@usgs.gov - 31.3.08)
enquired: I enjoyed reading Roy Plotnick’s update of Karl
Flessa’s (1997) assessment of paleontology, but was curious why those of us in the federal government were excluded, but state governments were included... I still countmyself as a paleontologist!
Roy Plotnick (plotnick@uic.edu - 31.3.08) responded:
I had to rely principally on the Directory of Geoscience Department’s database, which does not include federal employees. I suspect that I also missed a lot of state survey
people. That’s why it’s a ‘fuzzy snapshot’.
14. Stacia Spaulding (jrice@tds.net - 1.3.08) asked:
I have been having trouble with my light source dimming,
so I decided to change my halogen bulb. Now, no lightcomes through at all. Has anybody had this problem? I trieda couple of other light bulbs, but still no luck. I have an
Olympus microscope - model BH-2. I’ve decided that I
may need a new halogen lamp holder. This microscope is
18 years old and I bought it used! Any thoughts?!
Jackie Lees (j.lees@ucl.ac.uk - 1.3. 08) responded:
Have you checked the fuse?
Jean Self-Trail (jstrail@usgs.gov -3.3.08) replied: I
had a similar problem with my Zeiss Photomicroscope 3 acouple of years ago. The light kept dimming at odd moments. Additionally, I would occasionally get a shock when
I touched the light source. Eventually, it kept blowing out
any bulb I put in. It turned out that I had a short in the lightsource and that some minor rewiring took care of the problem.You might try rewiring before you chuck the oldsource for a new one.
Ron Morin (ronmorin@airmail.net - 3.3.08) added:

Web-chat

Like Jean, I have experienced this problem with my Zeiss
Photomicroscope 3 several times. I have had one short, asJean had, but all the other times the ceramic socket for thebulb had cracked and needed to be replaced. It was not necessary to get a new light source, which is fortunate because
the Zeiss Photomicroscope 3 is an old model, and I don’t
think new light sources are available. Of course I did not replace the ceramic socket myself, I had it done professionally.
15. Mary McGann (mmcgann@usgs.gov - 20.3.08)
asked: Help! So I’m confused. Is the proper usage
foraminifera or foraminifers? Here are some examples: In
the presence of increased dissolved organic matter, theabundance and diversity of foraminifera increase (Bandyand others, 1964b; Watkins, 1961)... Resig (1960) first documented the general distribution of foraminifera near fourof the outfalls...Can you shed some light on this subject?
Ken Miller (kgm@rci.rutgers.edu - 20.3.08) replied: My
recollection is that common usage was foraminifera,
foraminiferal (though there was a movement to the awful
foraminiferids). Then came DSDP and foraminifers became their style. Because so much of the foraminiferal literature was published in DSDP and its successors ODP and
IODP, it has become more common to use foraminifers.
That said, I prefer foraminifera, foraminiferal. Now how
about plankton, planktonic (correct), or planktic (an abomination promulgated by the USGS as I recollect); benthos,
bethonic or benthic (I prefer benthic over the now archaic
benthonic), but you say Van Wyck (Van Wick) or I say Van
Wyck (Van Wike) and both are correct...just be consistent.
Ken Finger (kfinger@berkeley.edu - 20.3.08) opined: I
like foraminifers when referring to specific ones (e.g. theseforaminifers are reworked; one foraminifer was pyritized),
as opposed to forams in general (e.g. our study of
foraminifera shows...). And I tend to use Foraminifera
when I am specifically referring to the suborder (e.g. I decided to study Foraminifera because they are fascinating...), but foraminifera can be used as well in most of thosecases. Mary, your usage of foraminifera in the sentences
you provide looks just fine to me.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 20.3.08) replied: Hi,
Mary - I like foraminifera for one or more forams;
foraminiferan sometimes for one; foraminiferal as an adjective. I am sure Ken can help you out too, most likely bydestroying my uses.
Ken Finger (kfinger@berkeley.edu - 21.3.08) responded: Ken M. - Don’t blame the USGS for ‘planktic’!
I suspect the deletion of the ‘on’ from ‘-onic’ followed Anders Martinsson. He had a series of papers in Lethaia that
I thought had resolved several semantics issues, eventhough many haven’t stopped embracing erroneous terminology. Offhand, I don’t recall if there are any publishedrebuttals to his conclusions:1974 - Planktic, nektic, benthic. Lethaia, 8: 193-194.
1979 - Ostracodes, nematodes and cestodes. Lethaia, 12: 152.
1979 - Planktic vs. planktonic once more. Lethaia, 12: 244.

75

1979 - The case for ‘ostracod’. Lethaia, 12: 264.
1981 - Conifers, rotifers and foraminifera. Lethaia, 14: 82.
1982 - How to retain planktic organisms and escape Platic love.
Lethaia, 15: 30.

Ken Miller (kgm@rci.rutgers.edu - 21.3.08) came backwith: Ken F. - Lucy corrected me and in fact the USGS has
no official position on planktic, so my apologies to my
USGS friends and colleagues. I do remember now the 1982
paper. Ahh, the point is, each to his own.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 1.4.08) opined: Loeblich & Tappan would be rolling in their graves. Helenwould have researched it well, hence foraminifers is goodfor several of them, foraminifer is good for one of them,foraminiferal is a good adjective. Foraminifera is not good
because it is not the proper name of the group.
Foraminiferida is the proper noun. Foraminifera should
therefore never be capitalized unless you refer back tosome ancient use of that word as the proper noun for thegroup. I think I will keep using foraminifera for everything,
and forget about foraminiferan and all the rest. I like it.
Benthos (= depth of the sea), necktos (= swimmer) andplanktos (= wanderer) are all Greek. The AGI Glossary of
Geology accepts benthic and benthonic, does not record
necktic or necktonic, and lists only planktonic. It is not useful. Surely the Greeks must have some grammatical rulesthat control what the suffixes are when these nouns are usedas adjectives. I like benthonic, necktonic and planktonic,too.
Sue Goldstein (sgoldst@gly.uga.edu - 2.4.08) added:
Current classification recognizes our beloved forams as ataxonomic Class, Foraminifera, rather than as an order, theForaminiferida, in which case Foraminifera should be capitalized. Loeblich & Tappan (1992) elevated the forams to
the rank of class. See also the Society of Protozoologists’
The Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa (2000), and the chapter on foram systematics in Sen Gupta’s Modern
Foraminifera (1999) for discussion. The Adl et al. (2005.
J. Eukaryotic Microbiol.) paper recognizes the Foraminifera
as a ‘first rank’ group within the ‘super-group’ Rhizaria
Cavalier-Smith, 2002, but does not otherwise assign them
to a traditional higher taxonomic category. In this context,
foraminifer(s) and foraminiferan(s) should both be valid
for informal use.
Jere Lipps (jlipps@berkeley.edu - 2.4.08) replied: You
are correct, Sue. However, the problem is that all of theseclassifications are temporary, not complete (Sen Gupta’s,
1999, dealt only with modern taxa), or tentative (Adl et al.,2005) and already out of date (Parfrey et al., 2006, PLoS
Genetics). As soon as we get the higher levels of eukaryoteclassification worked out, we will have something to go
on. I’d not capitalize any of them, and not use
Foraminiferida either (which at least is clearly defined but
incorrect). Forams are a major group well above the traditional kingdoms we used to recognize. I doubt that the traditional Linnean classification ranks will work in the
future, and we should get prepared mentally for that to happen. A strictly evolutionarily-based classification, with

76

Lees

proper evaluation of morphology and genetics, will require
it. We’ll see how it all works out fairly soon I hope. But
right now it’s a mess. So if you must use a classification, be
sure to specify which one you use carefully and don’t mix
and match, since none are much comparable. For most of
us doing ecologic or stratigraphic work, I’d use the mostcomprehensive treatment, which would be one of L&T’s
books, so that others know what you mean.
When I try to teach this stuff, I use diagrams showing
the branching patterns either as solid lines, when secure, oras dashed lines when not secure, as with forams. Putting
foram classifications into the larger eukaryote scheme
using only words confuses the current uncertain situation.
A diagram also shows the place of the traditional kingdomsof Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protists more clearly with a little explanation. Of course, within forams, we can still use
the traditional ranks, perhaps without names, except for
genera and species, for the time being until the genetics/morphology mess is reconciled. [These are] excitingtimes in foram systematics, from the species to the domain
level. Loeblich & Tappan would be enjoying it all and bequite happy to see the new information, and, yes, to stop
spinning in their graves and accept new spellings andnomenclature (as long as you follow the rules!).
John Frampton (biostrat@carib-link.net - 2.4.08)
added: Given that Helen Tappan would have researched itwell the following can be found in Foraminiferal Genera
and their Classification. Page 7 in the description of theOrder Foraminiferida: “benthic and attached or motile, orpelagic”; and on p.452 in the description of the Globigerinina: “Planktonic in habit”. I also prefer foraminifera
for everything.
16. Maria Triantaphyllou (mtriant@geol.uoa.gr 18.4.08): Hi everyone, can you please take a look at thesephotos and tell me your opinion? Could these coccoliths be
E. huxleyi? The sample contained abudant Gephyrocapsa,
including G. protohuxleyi. These specimens didn’t haveany bridge. Could they be the first representatives of E.
huxleyi?
Osman Varol (osman_varol@hotmail.com - 18.4.08)
replied: It looks to me [like] Crenalithus doronicoides.
Mike Styzen (michael.styzen@shell.com - 21.4.08)
opined: This is a good place to insert a commercial for
ww.nannotax.org! Lots of people pick something they call
C. doronicoides. In the ‘black book’, Jeremy presents a
pretty good case for the non-existence of this taxon. I don’t
use SEM so I suspect that I would lump these specimens
into a junk box called ‘Reticulofenestra small’, which I suspect in many cases is the same box as C. doronicoides. Several people I’ve talked to will quite emphatically defend
one side or the other of this argument. Those of us in the‘Reticulofenestra small’ camp just can’t wait till you work
it out... The best place to discuss and illustrate this is thenannotax website. [See advert, p.34]